The Constitution Is Honored, Thanks To Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

One of the most argued about amendments in the Bill of Rights, is the second one.  It states, rather plainly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the recently decided case Palmer v. District of Columbia,Justice Scullin, following in the footsteps of other recent decisions including District of Columbia v. Heller amongst others.  While neither Heller nor Palmer extends the rights that I believe the Founding Fathers intended, it gets it closer.

In his opinion, Scullin references Heller which stated:

Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad (emphasis added.)

The arguments that are also built against the 2nd amendment, and other portions of the Constitution, is that the Constitution is intended to be a living, breathing document.  That is not an application that I can subscribe to, in particular with regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Framers of the Constitution, along with those who struggled through the American Revolution, were not fond of authoritarian governments.  They also were aware that the people would need the ability to not only protect themselves from criminals who may do them harm, but from their government should it overstep its bounds.  Those who seek to restrict the 2nd amendment in a fully non-Constitutional manner often argue that the Framers of the Constitution never foresaw the type of weaponry the citizens of this country have the option of procuring.  I will grant that as a true point.  On the flip side of that equation, however, is that they could never have imagined the weapons of mass destruction that our government would also possess.

Ignoring court interpretations, along with legislative actions that have occurred over the last 3/4 of a century, and focusing on primary and secondary documents of the feelings of those who wrote the Constitution, along with the wording they chose for the amendment, makes it clear to me what their intent was.  Justin Scullin in his decision recognizes that in part, and partially restores the 2nd amendment right to the citizens of Washington, D.C.